4 ms·

I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, f

I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all. There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. stop perpetuating this fallacious myth abouth FOSS, please. That being said, the real issue still is about ownership. If I buy a block of wood, even if you already shaped it into your "art" i have every right to modify it as I see fit. Its a physical thing that I own. Now, I couldnt copy your work and sell it though. In reality a tractor isnt that much different. Its a physical object, with software "which could be argued is also physical in the form of 1s and 0s", and if I buy it I have the right to modify it as I see fit. What if something goes wrong with the software and I want to fix it? Oh no, thats illegal?! In reality this is about control of the user, and money, not about anything else. It reduces freedom and security and functionality in almost every way. A good example of this is my bad purchase of a samsung smart tv. Even though I know its running linux and hence gplv2, samsung has made it almost impossible to root the device without bricking it. Why? because they want control over the user and lots of their money system is setup around that. Its not about protecting the user. Its not about warranty issues, because I would gladly click the "i accept that my device is no longer under warranty if I load debian on it instead of your crappy samsung os". Its about app store and ad money, and pitentially about surveillance.

chc 12y ago
> I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all. > There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. You appear to be arguing that it is not expressly forbidden by the GPL, but this is not what api said. There is something standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code — practicality. When you can only sell one license to the software ever, it's really impractical to build a business around selling that software. In fact, I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  "I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software." RedHat, Suse, I just got done telling you Samsung, Zentyal, just off the top of my head, tons more if you just did a quick search. Note that sometimes it's bundled with hardware, or it's the support that makes them *the most8 money, but quite often they still make money selling the software too, so lets put this myth about practicality to rest.
  - chc 12y ago
    I think you know full well that those are not at all what I meant. You can say "they still make money selling the software too," but that's what they call damning with faint praise. I made some money selling my old car, but I don't say I have a car-selling business. Those are hardware companies and service companies, not companies that primarily sell software. The simple fact is that selling free software has not been shown to be a viable business model. There are businesses that have shown the value of using free software, and businesses that have made good money supporting free software, but creating and selling free software just doesn't appear to be something you can look to for income. And that's what api was talking about when he said "In [Stallman's] world, the creators of things starve."

chc 12y ago

> I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all. > There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. You appear to be arguing that it is not expressly forbidden by the GPL, but this is not what api said. There is something standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code — practicality. When you can only sell one license to the software ever, it's really impractical to build a business around selling that software. In fact, I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software.

arca_vorago 12y ago
"I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software." RedHat, Suse, I just got done telling you Samsung, Zentyal, just off the top of my head, tons more if you just did a quick search. Note that sometimes it's bundled with hardware, or it's the support that makes them *the most8 money, but quite often they still make money selling the software too, so lets put this myth about practicality to rest.
- chc 12y ago
  I think you know full well that those are not at all what I meant. You can say "they still make money selling the software too," but that's what they call damning with faint praise. I made some money selling my old car, but I don't say I have a car-selling business. Those are hardware companies and service companies, not companies that primarily sell software. The simple fact is that selling free software has not been shown to be a viable business model. There are businesses that have shown the value of using free software, and businesses that have made good money supporting free software, but creating and selling free software just doesn't appear to be something you can look to for income. And that's what api was talking about when he said "In [Stallman's] world, the creators of things starve."